Last week we told you how Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker considers implementing a polling place Photo ID restriction in his state to be so "pressing" that he would call a special session of the state legislature to do it. He says it's the only such matter "pressing" enough to merit such extraordinary action this year, in advance of the November 2014 election --- when Walker himself, just coincidentally, faces a very tight re-election race.

That, despite the fact that two state courts have already found the Republicans' existing polling place Photo ID voter restriction law to be a violation of the state constitution and that expert testimony during one of the two trials detailed how there is only one single known case of voter impersonation fraud in WI over the past 10 years that might have possibly been deterred by such a law. At the same time, tens of thousands of perfectly legal voters will likely be barred from voting under such a law.The state Supreme Court is currently deciding on the state's appeal to the lower courts' rulings.

Republicans pretend that implementing such a law is not about voter suppression, but now at least one of them, to his great credit, strongly and loudly disagrees.

Schultz also decried the current WI GOP effort to suppress the vote --- one which would likely effect many elderly as well as minority and student voters --- as an insult to veterans, calling it "a slap in the face at the very least to some of the people who gave some of the most vital years of their life in the service of their country"...

Speaking on a Madison, WI radio show this week, Schultz said: "I began this session thinking that there was some lack of faith in our voting process and we maybe needed to address it. But I have come to the conclusion that this is far less noble."

SCHULTZ: It's just, I think, sad when a political party - my political party - has so lost faith in its ideas that it's pouring all of its energy into election mechanics. And again, I'm a guy who understands and appreciates what we should be doing in order to make sure every vote counts, every vote is legitimate.

But that fact is, it ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud.

The only thing that we do have in this state is we have long lines of people who want to vote. And it seems to me that we should be doing everything we can to make it easier, to help these people get their votes counted. And that we should be pitching as political parties our ideas for improving things in the future, rather than mucking around in the mechanics and making it more confrontational at the voting sites and trying to suppress the vote.

Israel notes Schultz went on to call the Republican effort "just plain wrong", adding: "It is all predicated on some belief there is a massive fraud or irregularities, something my colleagues have been hot on the trail for three years and have failed miserably at demonstrating."

You are absolutely right, Senator. Thank you for saying as much out loud. We're as embarrassed for your party as you are.

* * *

Please help support The BRAD BLOG's fiercely independent, award-winning coverage of your electoral system --- now in our ELEVENTH YEAR! --- as available from no other media outlet in the nation...

The main reason Schulz is able to say what he said is that he is planning to retire after this current term. We need to better understand (and possibly prevent) parties from having such control over their elected members that they make them into ventriloquist dummies instead of representatives of their constituents.

"But that fact is, it ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud.", really? How do you know when there are no mechanisms in place to prevent a non-citizen from voting? The fact there is very little voter fraud convictions is a testament to the DNC for voting down any proof of citizenship requirements thus allowing non-citizens to cancel out republican votes without getting caught.....brilliant!

"But that fact is, it ought to be abundantly clear to everybody in this state that there is no massive voter fraud.", really? How do you know when there are no mechanisms in place to prevent a non-citizen from voting?

I'm sorry to see you know so little about this topic. There are such mechanisms in place. For a start, most registration forms require an affirmation of citizenship, under penalty of law, by the registrant. Falsification and/or voting fraudulently (as a non-citizen) is punished by years in jail, deportation and/or $10,000 fine in most cases.

Moreover, voting rolls (who is registered to vote) and poll books (who actually voted) are public records. It's pretty easy to look to see who voted and see if you can find any non-citizens on those lists. Republicans have been doing that for years, and finding next to nothing. (Of course, what non-citizen would be silly enough to risk deportation by committing such a crime --- and signing for it, and given the federal government their address in the bargain?!)

The fact there is very little voter fraud convictions is a testament to the DNC for voting down any proof of citizenship requirements thus allowing non-citizens to cancel out republican votes without getting caught.....brilliant!

I appreciate that you are easily conned enough to believe that --- without any evidence whatsoever --- but I, on the other hand, happen to believe in the Constitutional value of innocent until proven guilty. I'm sorry you do not share such a love for the U.S. Constitution and prefer to make people prove they are not committing a crime before allowing them to exercise their right to vote. In fact, you'd rather rob millions of Americans of that right, apparently, in order to keep --- how many? zero? --- non-citizens from voting.

There's one thing you are good at, however. Being conned and playing a stooge. Congrats!

“I'm sorry to see you know so little about this topic.”, oh really? How 'progressive' of you to think so.
“There are such mechanisms in place. For a start, most registration forms require an affirmation of citizenship, under penalty of law, by the registrant. Falsification and/or voting fraudulently (as a non-citizen) is punished by years in jail, deportation and/or $10,000 fine in most cases.”, such affirmations mean nothing to people that break the law and a system that allows them to go undetected much less convict them. Tell me, how does one prevent a non-citizen from voting by absentee ballot? And once a non-citizen votes it is counted as a legitimate vote canceling out a legal vote. Are Republicans citizens too? Do there votes need to be safeguarded? Or in order to advance socialism thru democracy Republican citizens votes don't count? No really answer the question and don't evaded it!

“Moreover, voting rolls (who is registered to vote) and poll books (who actually voted) are public records. It's pretty easy to look to see who voted and see if you can find any non-citizens on those lists.”, if it is so easy then why does States like California refuse to even maintain an actual voter database as HAVA 2002 allows? But independent groups like Project Veritas have found such evidence but people like you refuse to accept it.

“Republicans have been doing that for years, and finding next to nothing. (Of course, what non-citizen would be silly enough to risk deportation by committing such a crime --- and signing for it, and given the federal government their address in the bargain?!)”, Republicans haven't been looking in the right direction. Just balance the number of jury duty declines against the actual voter database and get a small sample of non-citizens voting. This is something I'm trying to get the Board of Supervisors here in San Diego to do.

“The fact there is very little voter fraud convictions is a testament to the DNC for voting down any proof of citizenship requirements thus allowing non-citizens to cancel out republican votes without getting caught.....brilliant!---Dug FmJamul

“I appreciate that you are easily conned enough to believe that --- without any evidence whatsoever --- but I, on the other hand, happen to believe in the Constitutional value of innocent until proven guilty.”, really?”, you mean no evidence you will accept. If you say being open-minded enough to know men are not angels and they will break the law being conned that's just your indoctrination speaking. You seem to forget Republicans are citizens too and their votes need to be safeguard as much as Democrats. I'm sure you don't appreciate my efforts to create fair elections by having proof of citizenship and photo id requirements in place, how would democrats win close elections if dead people, felons, and non-citizens are prevented for voting for them undetected?

“I'm sorry you do not share such a love for the U.S. Constitution and prefer to make people prove they are not committing a crime before allowing them to exercise their right to vote. In fact, you'd rather rob millions of Americans of that right, apparently, in order to keep --- how many? zero? --- non-citizens from voting.”, typical progressive propaganda. I prefer fair and honest elections and not a system the was created by seditious progressive democrats to cancel out republican votes. Blacks, Hispanics, Women and elderly Democrats have a constitutional right to buy booze and own guns, are their rights being disenfranchised by them having to produce id? And when the Democrats in 1993 voted down proof of citizenship requirements and linked voter registration to getting a driver's license, was that disenfranchisement of their rights?

“There's one thing you are good at, however. Being conned and playing a stooge. Congrats!”, being a critical thinker along with being a Constitutional Republican is what I am good at, you on the other-hand are excellent at disseminating progressive propaganda. In 2008 65% of registered democrats supported photo id and proof of citizenship requirements to vote, that number is now down to around 51%. Your propaganda has been working....great job.

If you ever want to debate this topic live on air please don't be shy and let me know.

“I'm sorry to see you know so little about this topic.”, oh really? How 'progressive' of you to think so.

Um, not sure what makes that comment "progressive" or otherwise. It's about facts. Not politics. You know very little about the facts of this issue, other than the propaganda you've clearly bought into hook, line and sinker. You have been conned. That has nothing to do with your politics or mine.

Evidence of that con, just for a start? You've repeated the words Republican over and over again here, when my response to you said nothing about Republicans or Democrats other than to point out that Republicans have tried --- over and over --- and failed (over and over) to demonstrate these epidemics of voter fraud. Surely you saw, for example, what happened when the Republican AG and the Republican Legislature in South Carolina tried (and failed) to demonstrate hundreds of dead people were voting there, right? It costs tax payers millions of dollars to find that there were not hundreds, but ZERO "dead voters" there.

Surely Fox "News" told you about that embarrassing and costly failure and so many others like it in state after state, right?

You've fallen for the Right/Left paradigm that con-men like James O'Keefe and everyone at Fox "News" had hoped you'd fall for. But let's deal with your specifics now...

“There are such mechanisms in place. For a start, most registration forms require an affirmation of citizenship, under penalty of law, by the registrant. Falsification and/or voting fraudulently (as a non-citizen) is punished by years in jail, deportation and/or $10,000 fine in most cases.”, such affirmations mean nothing to people that break the law and a system that allows them to go undetected much less convict them.

It is very easy to detect the type of fraud you have been hoaxed into worrying about. Check who is on the registration and/or voting lists and demonstrate who is a non-citizen or a felon or whatever it is you think you are concerned about.

The George W. Bush Admin invested unprecedented time (5 years) and resources into investigating the issue nationally and they came up with next to ZERO. But you knew that as well, right?

Tell me, how does one prevent a non-citizen from voting by absentee ballot? And once a non-citizen votes it is counted as a legitimate vote canceling out a legal vote.

It could certainly happen. But, as the studies and investigations I've linked to so far (and many more) show, it's extraordinarily rare. What is NOT rare is the tens of thousands and/or millions of perfectly voters who would be prevented from voting under these laws, with no compelling governmental interest to block their vote. You are worried about 1 illegal vote "diluting" everyone else vote, but not about millions of uncast LEGAL votes giving certain voters much more say than they should have.

Do there votes need to be safeguarded? Or in order to advance socialism thru democracy Republican citizens votes don't count? No really answer the question and don't evaded it!

I won't "evaded" it. Of course Republican votes, Democratic votes, Libertarian votes, Green votes and independent votes (along with votes of all sorts of other parties) need to be safeguarded. That's what we do here.

You seem particularly clueless of the work that The BRAD BLOG does. Just a few hints, here we are fighting for the voters of Alaska's "Tea Party" Joe Miller and of Florida's Far-Right Allen West (those are just two articles in long series devoted to each of those races after both men and their voters got screwed during the electoral process.)

Why didn't you show up here and criticize us for those long series of articles and many others like them?

“Moreover, voting rolls (who is registered to vote) and poll books (who actually voted) are public records. It's pretty easy to look to see who voted and see if you can find any non-citizens on those lists.”, if it is so easy then why does States like California refuse to even maintain an actual voter database as HAVA 2002 allows?

They don't "refuse". They have had a boondoggle of third-party contractors trying to create the statewide computerized database. They now have online voter registration for the entire state finally. In the meantime, the voter database is and always has been available for each county in the state. They are public records. Have at them and feel free to demonstrate all the "voter fraud" you have been duped into believing is going on. Republicans have been trying to do that for years, and have come up (again) with virtually nothing.

I've already given you a link to the report(s) showing that you were conned by con-man James O'Keefe in NC, where REPUBLICANS did not find the dead people that O'Keefe scammed you about. But here it is again.

Yes, people CAN defraud any system. But, in the case of voting, it is very rare that VOTERS do so. (The real concerns about election fraud, in case you're wondering, is from insiders and those who have figured out how to game entire elections by flipping computerized vote tabulators invisibly, in seconds, and/or keeping entire swaths of the citizenry from being able to cast their votes.)

“Republicans have been doing that for years, and finding next to nothing. (Of course, what non-citizen would be silly enough to risk deportation by committing such a crime --- and signing for it, and given the federal government their address in the bargain?!)”, Republicans haven't been looking in the right direction. Just balance the number of jury duty declines against the actual voter database and get a small sample of non-citizens voting. This is something I'm trying to get the Board of Supervisors here in San Diego to do.

Yes. You should TOTALLY waste the tax-payers money in San Diego to do that. Very "conservative" of you! And, yes, Republicans have looked into matching up the jury decline databases with the voting rolls and found --- SURPRISE! --- people a) lie when they are called to do jury duty and b) become citizens months and years after they declined jury duty because they were non-citizens at the time.

“The fact there is very little voter fraud convictions is a testament to the DNC for voting down any proof of citizenship requirements thus allowing non-citizens to cancel out republican votes without getting caught.....brilliant!---Dug FmJamul

Um, the "DNC" doesn't vote on anything. Not any laws, anyway. But as to Democrats in state legislatures and Republicans in state legislatures, they vote for these things all the time. And they are turned down, time and again, by the courts finding them UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You don't seem to have any concern about Constitutional rights, but I do. So, again, that's where we may have to part ways.

“I appreciate that you are easily conned enough to believe that --- without any evidence whatsoever --- but I, on the other hand, happen to believe in the Constitutional value of innocent until proven guilty.”, really?”, you mean no evidence you will accept.

No. Without any evidence whatsoever. These issues have been heard time and again in courts (and laughed out of them time and again as well.) You either have evidence to prove a need to risk disenfranchising millions of legal voters or you don't. As of now, you don't. If you can find any, following decades of Republicans attempting to do exactly that, please let me know! I'd love the exclusive here at The BRAD BLOG!

If you say being open-minded enough to know men are not angels and they will break the law being conned that's just your indoctrination speaking.

"Indoctrination" by whom, champ? Again, as with "voter fraud", you also have no idea what you're talking about in regard to my work. There is a reason both Democrats and Republicans don't like speaking to me more often than not. Then, there are many Dems and Republicans both who are delighted to speak to me and request my help when they screwed by the electoral system in or after an election.

You seem to forget Republicans are citizens too and their votes need to be safeguard as much as Democrats.

I fight like hell for Republican citizen rights, just as I do for Democrats' and everyone else. Get a clue, Dug.

I'm sure you don't appreciate my efforts to create fair elections by having proof of citizenship and photo id requirements in place, how would democrats win close elections if dead people, felons, and non-citizens are prevented for voting for them undetected?

I appreciate anyone who wish to improve the election process. I appreciate people who actually understand the problem they are trying to "fix" even more. You, clearly, have no clue what you're doing or talking about, other than repeating long ago debunked voter suppressor nonsense.

I prefer fair and honest elections and not a system the was created by seditious progressive democrats to cancel out republican votes.

Me too. So, we're both in luck then, because we do not have a "system created by seditious progressive democrats to cancel out republican votes." But you are more than welcome to enjoy whatever fantasies you like.

Blacks, Hispanics, Women and elderly Democrats have a constitutional right to buy booze and own guns, are their rights being disenfranchised by them having to produce id?

Um, again, you don't seem to understand the Constitution. There is, for example, no "constitutional right" to "buy booze". That is a privilege, not a right. Do you even know the difference?

As to owning guns, yes, that's a right (one that is taken away all the time, due to compelling governmental interest --- example, felons, etc.) It is also a right that, unlike voting, is NOT lost if you don't have an ID on the day you go into buy one. You can buy one tomorrow. You cannot, however, vote tomorrow if you disenfranchised on Election Day.

Moreover, you do understand that nobody has a problem requiring an id to vote, right? Federal law already requires all voters produce one when they first register in person and, if they don't register in person, then when they go to vote for the first time. You knew that, right?

You also know that the majority of states already require voters produce ID when they go to vote, and that that is not a problem, right? It's only when Republicans attempt to restrict the type of IDs to very specific, state-issued Photo ID that they know millions of perfectly legal voters don't have that the issue becomes a problem. But you know all this already, right?

And when the Democrats in 1993 voted down proof of citizenship requirements and linked voter registration to getting a driver's license, was that disenfranchisement of their rights?

Huh? Who was "disenfranchised" by making it easier for citizens to register to vote? It led to millions and millions of new, legal voters having access to the voting system. What the hell are you even talking about?

“There's one thing you are good at, however. Being conned and playing a stooge. Congrats!”, being a critical thinker along with being a Constitutional Republican is what I am good at

Apparently not. While you have proven you don't understand (or care about) Constitutional rights, you have also proven that you aren't critical enough to learn what you are talking about and how you've been scammed over and over and over again. You, sir, are "good" at none of the above. Otherwise, you'd not have pedaled so much easily-debunked nonsense here already.

If you ever want to debate this topic live on air please don't be shy and let me know.

You must be thinking of CNN or Fox "News" or NBC. They frequently put two people on the air --- one who knows what they are talking about and one who doesn't --- for entertainment purposes. We do news around here. But thanks anyway! I do, frequently, open the phones to callers during my radio show, however. So feel free to give us a jingle whenever ya like!

Good luck on your crusade. When you decide you'd like to take on problems that actually exist, let me know. We could use some help around here reforming our electoral system to make sure we have fair elections in which every citizen is allowed to vote and every one of them can have their vote counted, counted accurately and in a way that they can know that it's been counted accurately. I am always happy to work with any and all folks, of any and all parties, who are dedicated to 100% overseeable, participatory democracy.

Saying citizens don't have a right to drink alcohol demonstrates how little you understand what our republican form of government is all about. What's not defined in the Amendments are left to the States and if States set a age limit on buying and drinking booze that's constitutional. If producing an id to buy booze must be disenfranchisement to minorities for your logic to work, but it's not so your whole premise and house of cards falls apart. This issue became partisan when the seditious progressive democrats in Congress voted down proof of citizenship requirement back in 1993 while still supporting dead people, felons, and non-citizens to vote for democrats by not supporting these requirements today. A new Rasmussen Report just came out that said an overwhelming majority of voters support my views and not yours. Democracy demands that Democrats in Congress back me up and not you and your ilk, you do support democracy, don't you?

Luck has nothing to do with promoting the truth about voter fraud and the truth is no amount of evidence or even polls that show how wrong you and your ilk are about the issue you will never come around to the truth because it goes against your progressive dogma.

Look, I understand where you are coming from. Your side is winning and you refuse to give up any advantage you have over those 'evil' Republicans but as long as there are no proof of citizenship and photo id requirements to vote there will never be fair elections in the US. Hell, even Sweden and Mexico have photo id requirements and it is about time we do also.